Posted
by
samzenpus
on Friday January 24, 2014 @05:34AM
from the pay-up dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "David Stout reports at Time Magazine that what began with a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple calling for a sperm donor in rural Topeka, Kansas ended in court on Wednesday with a judge ordering the sperm donor to pay child support. The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have William Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009 so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support. 'In this case, quite simply, the parties failed to perform to statutory requirement of the Kansas Parentage Act in not enlisting a licensed physician at some point in the artificial insemination process, and the parties' self-designation of (Marotta) as a sperm donor is insufficient to relieve (Marotta) of parental right and responsibilities to the child,' wrote Judge Mattivi. Marotta opposed that action, saying he had contacted Schreiner and her partner at the time, Angela Bauer, in response to an ad they placed on Craigslist seeking a sperm donor and signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities. 'We stand by that contract,' says Defense attorney Swinnen adding that the Kansas statute doesn't specifically require the artificial insemination be carried out by a physician. 'The insinuation is offensive, and we are responding vigorously to that. We stand by our story. There was no personal relationship whatsoever between my client and the mother, or the partner of the mother, or the child. Anything the state insinuates is vilifying my client, and I will address it.'"

Let's be a trifle more charitable here.It seems as though the state pursued this case off it's own bat. If you'd fallen on hard times and the state told you to name the father of your child or potentially not eat and have that child taken away from you, what would you do? The state is overreaching here, and it may well not be the mother's fault she's fallen on hard times. It can happen to anyone, through illness, divorce, sudden unemployment. The idea that all people who need state support are mere leeches is a poisonous stereotype perpetuated to justify the laissez-faire, let 'em starve approach taken by money-minded politicians and their aparatchiks.

I was almost victim of the vicious child support system. It's damned ridiculous. It has gotten to the point that everyone is better off avoiding anything going into public record. It's basically too late to say that though.

My ex-wife was illegally claiming my sons when collecting welfare in California. She apparently didn't need to present anything more than their social security numbers because she filed and started getting money. Meanwhile, the state tracked me down in my home state and contacted their child support services office to start extracting money from my pay.

There was just one problem. I had my sons with me and had them for quite some time. I contacted my state's office and they said there was nothing they could do. I have the children in question. One would think this is a slam-dunk. No. I requested they contact the school they were enrolled in to confirm they were with me. She wouldn't do it. It's not her job to validate -- just to do things to people. So I ended up taking the kids from school with copies of all the records I could collect and went down to her office in person. What could have been resolved with a phone call and some faxes had to be done at the inconvenience of my sons and a day's pay from me because I had to take the day off of work to resolve it.

It was resolved. But it was stupid. What people can do without proof has to be fought and even lost with insurmountable evidence to the contrary. There are cases where a person was charged with paternity, proven he wasn't the father and still shackled with child support. Why? Because he spent time with the mother and the child. That goes beyond reason. They've got it both ways. It's biology. It's relationships.

So take it from me and every sad case out there. If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is. But the system was built this way and single mothers take advantage of it far too often. Fathers are guilty until proven innocent and many are still punished afterward. Women are never held accountable for their actions and no one can expect otherwise. The only reasonable way to protect is to treat them as if they were a contagion. The situation is dangerous. Purely dangerous. And the greater the danger, the more extreme the measures one must take to protect one's self.

Sorry ladies... sorry kids. Blame the system and stop using it. If you want to depend on a man to take care of you and your children? How about taking care of him in return and making a family? Also, how about selecting a good man instead of "an exciting one" and being a good person yourself. I know it sounds stupidly old fashioned and somehow out of date, but there is a reason those ancient ideals were formed in ages past and the reasons they were needed then are the same as the reaons they are needed today.

I was lucky. The game didn't quite work in their case though I am sure if they tried to press it, it would have worked anyway. My eyes were opened to the situations out there and they are huge and tragic. Don't let labels like "deadbeat dad" fool you. Women are not innocent in any of this. They hold the control and the leverage and will use it when it suits them.

So take it from me and every sad case out there. If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is. But the system was built this way and single mothers take advantage of it far too often. Fathers are guilty until proven innocent and many are still punished afterward. Women are never held accountable for their actions and no one can expect otherwise. The only reasonable way to protect is to treat them as if they were a contagion. T

However, speaking this opinion brands you as a misogynist in the eyes of most women and some unintelligent males.

It depends on how you say it. I do not think you or GP are misogynist for pointing out the injustice of the system. But try this turn of phrase on for size: "If a woman wanted to abuse the system, what is there to protect the rights of the man?"

This is not making claims about how many women want to abuse the system, but putting the focus where it belongs: on whether the system is fair.

And, if the reply is "that would never happen," or "that's so rate as to be inconsequential," then it's not you who is the sexist.

So take it from me and every sad case out there. If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is. But the system was built this way and single mothers take advantage of it far too often. Fathers are guilty until proven innocent and many are still punished afterward. Women are never held accountable for their actions and no one can expect otherwise. The only reasonable way to protect is to treat them as if they were a contagion. The situ

Fresh into returning to the field of Tax Prep, maybe there was a potential other angle of this, and I look forward to anyone chiming in about this. But what if you fight the "grumpy dog" (Child Svc) with a Grumpier Dog? (IRS)!?

When you file/filed your taxes, even though maybe you're smart enough to usually do stuff yourself, go to a really good tax prep service on purpose and then file your return. The Claiming rules from the IRS have pretty fierce residency duration checks. The point here is not about the

I concur for "normal people." My ex is not normal people. She's unreachable in most cases. Even by the justice system. I can't tell you how many times over the course of the 20+ years I have not laid eyes on her that I get a call from some legal or law enforcement or other office seeking her whereabouts. (Honestly, I enjoy the calls... it's a reminder that she did me a huge favor by leaving me because my life got SO much better when she did.) She also claimed the children on taxes. And every year, proof to the contrary had to be delivered to the IRS like clockwork... that is until they got old enough. It's history now. It was drama back then. Because you know? If it was a man making these false claims, they would have come after him with guns drawn. But because it was her? They presume innocence. They presume ignorance (which is not an excuse under the law for men). They presume all manner of things and the result is invariably lots of slack which a man never gets.

A friend of mine had the neighboring state actually come and pursuade his wife to leave him, and bring the children. They got public housing and benefits and he had just had some major financial problems. So anyway about 2 years later he gets sued for child support. Not by his family of course, but by the state. Next thing you know any legitimate job he gets, the paycheck goes somewhere else. Last I knew he was working a taxi so at least he got paid in cash and could pay his bills and eat that way. It's not

The system is amazingly difficult to fix. Every judge, for example, is under intense scrutiny by women's groups. These 'charities' literally pay people to sit in court and observe cases and when the ruling is in favor of the man, it is brought into question and appeals are even paid for, at times, by these same charities to bring about the result they seek.

This is not about justice or fairness. Men tend to be ignorant of these things and simply live by naive ideals I wish we could all live under. My son, for example, has been seeing this girl for maybe two months at most now. He just took her to planned parenthood for birth control pills. I'm probably going to become a grandfather soon. He doesn't understand it. She is "taking control of the birth control issue for him." There are some things I can tell him and a lot more I cannot... you know, because he already knows everything and has it all under control. As a man who has lived through that scam, I know what it leads to. It's a future where he's locked in and she's happily indulging her biological instincts.

He will likely end up giving his life for her. And I don't mean dying. People define life as death. I don't get that. Life is every day of every moment you are alive. When you are forced by law under threat of imprisonment to give up your money and your time, it's not a choice. The choice is, was and remains hers at all times. If a mother wants to stop being a mother, she CAN! Can a father? Nope. Not ever. Why is that?

It's the system. A sexist system. And people like you? I can't tell if you're male or female and it doesn't matter. You can't believe in justice if you believe this is just. The system only punishes men even when it is the woman's fault.

Of course the system is amazingly difficult to fix. That doesn't mean that you are right in your assertion that women (or apparently only single mothers which is illogical as any woman can become a single mother) are basically evil. There are many women - and single mothers - who are good people. You didn't choose well - well that's too bad. A lot of women also don't choose well and then end up single mothers.

Abstinence isn't going to happen and if your son is old enough to be having sex then he's going to have to be old enough to live with the consequences. His choice, just as it was your choice to get with the mother of your children. If you've told him and he's chosen to trust her then I guess you're going to have to hope that his judgement is better than yours was. Not knowing the girl I can have no opinion other than a generalization that most young women don't have sex just to trap a man based on my own experience in life.

I'm male and I've had, over the years, a couple of women try and trap me. Over those same years I've also seen women abandoned by the fathers of their children and left to fend for themselves, which is why I take issue with your generalizations.

There are more generalizations about men that are true than about women. So let's talk about men since you are one and so am I.

1. Men don't usually initiate relationships. Women do. They make the choice more than men do.2. Women hold the box of sex and control it and use it to their advantage. (I don't hold this against women, I would do the same if I could. This is not 'about men' exactly but still an important point.)3. Men don't usually end relationships. Women do. Men generally want no changes... just to keep on doing what they do. It's women who are famous for wanting change.4. A man, kept happy, will remain completely loyal and devoted to his partner. Trouble is most often a man doesn't just usually leave on a whim. Things have to be pretty bad for him to want to change his life...even endanger his life by leaving a woman.

So consider that when you cite women abandoned by men. What causes a man to act against his normal nature and behavior. What impetus drives a man away?

Were I a wiser man when I was younger, I would have abandoned my wife long ago. Why? Because she fought loudly and violently. Neighbors would call police and when they came, she answered their questions about "ma'am? did he hurt you?" with "yes." It was a lie but the system... it doesn't allow police to make such determinations. She said it, he gets arrested. I should have ended things with the first incident. I didn't. She later recanted her claims to the police and I was released to go back to work earning money for her to spend... multiple times.

I'm a man. My manly sense says I will take care of my family no matter what it takes. Well? It nearly cost me my freedom. Trying to be a good man cost me a lot more than it should and certainly was more than negated by the harm of following my naive ideals. She left me. The results were nearly the same as if I left her. She went for public benefits and that started the state coming after me with their legal powers and all that.

Women don't have sex "just to trap men." No. That's precisely why I used the words " happily indulging her biological instincts." She's blameless. It's her body that makes her do it. It's not intentional. But then again, as a man, we know our bodies make us want to do things too. It's not an excuse for us. It's not one for women either... unless you are advocating that women are children and so not responsible for their actions or decisions.

I agree. But when the choice is "risk your life" or "defend yourself" I recommend defense each time. It is sad and unfortunate that people are so very addicted to welfare systems in all of their forms. It needs to be stopped. But the moment anyone tries to take it away, all hell breaks loose. "Think of the children!" Yes. Think of the children. Unfortunately, the women who are not accountable for their actions and decisions are effectively children as well. After all, when you define what is a chil

Get real, mothers tell the state that they don't know who the possible father is every day. You have obviously never looked at how the process works. The mother could have avoided the entire situation by declining to name the man, and still gotten the benefits.

She chose to name the man and is letting the state of Kansas play the bad guy for her own benefit. She used him to get what she was otherwise unwilling to do and has now burned the guy that naively helped out a lesbian couple without having a lawyer on board.

Quit calling a spade a duck and offering an excuse for her abominable behavior.

I doubt she could have got away with a lie. When she received maternity care she probably told the doctors how she got pregnant. It would be responsible to tell them in case there were any medical issues that arose (genetics etc.) Her friends probably knew and would have been required to lie to the state as well.

She had no reason not to be honest about who the father was right up until they decided to make him pay, which she probably thought was impossible due to the contract. Maybe she was dumb assuming that, but there is no evidence of malice here.

As for the sperm party, the point of the party is so that the mom can honestly say she doesn't know who the possible father is. As for DNA having a damn thing to do whether or not you can get ordered to pay child support, that is an urban legend.

I'm not sure your if trolling or ignorant, but I'll bite for the people that could be misled into thinking actually biological fatherhood would have anything to do with child support. Many states do not give the father any opportunity to challenge paternity. If your

On the one hand, I think it would be neat to make money by self-pleasure. On the other hand, I feel that sperm donation is a bit icky.

On a genetic level, it's little different than offering your kid for adoption. Actually, it's about half your kid. If you have fashionable features, it's a good way to spread your genes to the next generation.

On a social level, it's basically making babies without parental responsibility, and without the fun of sex or the possibility of venereal disease. I don't see how you could in good conscience make babies with the intent of selling them off. Furthermore, fashionable sperm donors sometimes become the genetic fathers of many, many children. Sometimes the children start dating without knowing that they're genetic half-siblings.

Increasingly, medicine is benefiting from family history tracking. Education benefits from parental involvement. A sperm donor would be depriving the children of those useful resources.

Morally, it's like giving blood. If someone you gave blood to committed a crime, would you be responsible? Of course not.

In the UK, people have the right to contact their (sperm donor) parent. Why? It's just going to upset the child:

*knock knock*Guy: "Uh..hello?"Child: "I'm your son!"Guy: "Is this a joke? My son's at school. Go away or I'm calling the police"Child: "No, you donated sperm 15 years ago. Look, here's the document"Guy: "I don't care about all that - I was a student, I needed the money. You d

On a social level, it's basically making babies without parental responsibility, and without the fun of sex or the possibility of venereal disease. I don't see how you could in good conscience make babies with the intent of selling them off.

I think the problem is in your definition of parent. I don't think semen is a baby, or that ejaculation creates a parent. I believe the role of parent is one that should be entered into voluntarily. For instance: A woman in the USA should be allowed to take birth control pills. A woman should be able to have an abortion if she decides to not be a parent. She should be able to give a child up for adoption if she doesn't want it. Currently a mother can drop her child off at any safe-house, no questions asked, no 18 years of child support, and she doesn't even have to tell anyone (not even the father) that a child was born.

Now, I don't think a man should have control over a woman's body just because she's impregnated with his sperm. He shouldn't be able to force her to abort or carry to term his child. However, since Motherhood is voluntary in the USA, then in the interest of equality, Fatherhood should be voluntary too. A woman is not required by law to inform her partner about her taking of birth control, or forgetting to take it. A man should be able to wear a condom if he wants to. A man should be able to get a vasectomy without consulting with his partner (doctors frequently prevent the latter). A woman can choose not to carry the child, or to give it up for adoption or drop it off at a safe house, so a man should be allowed to opt-out of fatherhood as the woman can.

If the woman knows she can not force a man to be a father against his will, then maybe she will make different choices about bringing a life into the world she can not support -- or opt to give it up for adoption. The lesbian couple agreed to become parents, the sperm donor did not. When the lesbians split up, the other woman who was not pregnant but had agreed to be a parent should be the one paying child support -- It was these mothers' voluntarily agreeing to become parents, then reneging late in the game that caused the situation where child support was necessary. The lesbian couple adopted a donor's sperm and agreed to carry out the parenting roles that come with having a baby. That adoption is such a racket these days is a related, but altogether different matter. However, it's interesting that even in adoption you have people voluntarily entering parenthood -- The state doesn't just force people to raise a child against their will... unless the person is a man.

It's quite heinous to force a child to be raised by people who do not want it. Indeed, to prevent mothers from abandoning their babies in dumpsters we have the no-questions asked safe-house drop off. Men shouldn't control women's bodies, but it's ridiculous to not give men any reproduction rights at all, especially when allowing them to opt-out of fatherhood well before the child is born doesn't limit a woman's choices in the least: She can still decide to be a mother or not. It's quite telling that feminists actually lobby against even such small degree of male reproductive rights, meanwhile claiming to be in favour of, "Equality". This is why I support Women's Rights, not feminism: Part of the problem is that the mother's lesbian partner was not given the right to be the child's parent. Granted, there are official means for sperm donors to help the couple out, but in the interest of equality and fairness the Judge shouldn't have required the donor to pay child support -- He only recognized half of the lesbian couple's right to voluntary parenthood.

Education benefits from parental involvement. A sperm donor would be depriving the children of those useful resources.

You are delusional if you think that two lesbian women would necessarily be depriving their child of the useful resources of education and parental involvement.

no, it is a real problem whether they're paternal or maternal half-siblings. Maternal half siblings share a higher risk of autistic spectrum disorders than paternal ones, while the risk for full siblings (it has happened, and very recently in England) is orders of magnitude higher. The risk is vastly increased of various genetic disorders, miscarriages etc., in cases where full siblings are separated and forcibly adopted, in which cases their early life records are erased or substituted to make it harder for them to find their biological families.

Lesson: in the slightest issue of doubt, get a DNA profile done. Failure to do so when there is a question of parentage can bring serious even tragic consequences.

Each child receives 23 chromosomes from his/her mother, and 23 chromosomes from his/her father. Two of those are XX or XY. As far as inbreeding is concerned, the remaining 44 chromosomes also matter. Half-siblings share about a quarter of their chromosomes (on average). If they're of opposite genders, then it's just under a quarter.

To be clear, the real problem with inbreeding isn't that it causes bad genetic mutations, but that it brings them to the surface. Horrific genetic disorders that a

This case will make it that much harder for lesbian couples to obtain a sperm donor. Like many laws and regulations, it'll ensure that things only occur when the proper people (in this case fertility clinics) get their cut.

When you do things in the real world with considerable consequences, make sure you are doing them properly. If this had been a rental agreement, or a purchase contract for a company, or whatever, the result would have been similar if the parties involved did things without the correct paperwork.

Maybe it's a burden, but it's there to regulate our society. Law is very much like a computer. You can go the bureaucratic way and change your data using the correct API with all the filesystem or database overhead and the requirement to use a particular format or language. Or you can just flip a few bits in memory or on the hard drive and get the same result. Except that it might break data integrity, invalidate the sector because of a checksum violation or whatever else.

Also don't forget that the interested party in this case was not some clinic or medical association, but the government, which has apparently paid quite a bit of money in child support and - thanks to all of us complaining all the time that the government is wasting money - was probably obliged by some deficit limit law to check if it can't get that money back from the father.

Unintended consequences, anyone?

But yes, it'll make it more difficult, because lots of people don't want to use the proper API and fill out the proper paperwork and don't want to pay a lawyer to tell them what the proper paperwork is. For a one-night-stand, that's understandeable. For a child, less so.

When you do things in the real world with considerable consequences, make sure you are doing them properly. If this had been a rental agreement, or a purchase contract for a company, or whatever, the result would have been similar if the parties involved did things without the correct paperwork.

Except that in those cases - especially when both parties to the contract agree completely with the same interpretation of the contract - the courts will almost always allow that interpretation to stand. Its very rare indeed that the courts will reinterpret a signed contractual relationship contrary to the wishes of both parties.

I wonder if this will help or hurt future same-sex couples find sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogate mothers - all of which could find themselves caught up in a similar web of unintended consequences...

This has nothing to do with same-sex couples. This could have happened with a differnt-sex couple or a single person.

But it didn't, did it? How many infertile men are out there, whose female partner gets pregnant through artificial insemination? The sperm donor doesn't pay child support because of contracts. In this case, the judge is saying that the contract isn't valid because the insemination wasn't carried out by a physician, even though the law doesn't require that. So in reality, their contract is no different than an other artificial insemination contract except that it wasn't carried out by a doctor, which doesn't actually matter in the law. Except it supposedly matters to the Kansas Department for Children and Families and to the judge.

So, either the Kansas Department for Children and Families and the judge all have their heads completely up their asses (which is doubtful, because bureacratic cranial-rectal syndrome generallly results in inaction, not over-action) or the department and the judge are being discriminatory and using a non-existent law as an excuse.

Hey Fox, are you going to cover this story where Kansas, a firmly Republican state, has all these regulations governing what a person can and can't do with their own body, or are you going to keep whining about the regulations for clean air and water?

OK, let me see if I understand:"It's her body, her right to choose" (to have an abortion). It is a meaningless mass of tissue that can be disposed of at the mother's convenience. The father gets no say because logically, it's the woman and her body that are at stake.

"Pay me the money" Yet if they decide not to abort, the CONSEQUENCES of the decision will have a lifetime impact financially on the sperm donor/father.

Isn't that nearly taxation without representation? Essentially a choice is being made about my (male) future wealth without my participation.

IF the choice to continue/not continue a pregnancy is your choice, the consequence is your responsibility.If the consequences fall partially on me, I better have a goddamn say.*

*And for those of you who would respond "You had your say, you stuck it in" - in FACT I'd agree with you. But if you go down that road, then you also have to concede that women MADE THEIR CHOICE when they allowed it to be stuck in. Certainly, rape happens, and in cases of rape I would indeed say that is the sole circumstance where a woman IS of course entitled to make the decision without the father. But let's also remember that not all rape is actually rape, as Roe v Wade clearly showed (she claimed rape, it wasn't).

I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.

Unfortunately decades of trying to get deadbeats to pay up means that the laws are very strict, and you are correct that everyone involved was stupid for thinking they could just throw together their own contract without bothering to check their state's laws on the subject.

Like I say, years of "Oh, I meant to do that" from people who had no intention of doing so has made it all but impossible to get any leeway. If you give people an inch and they take a mile, that inch gets taken away again.

If you really think it is so sad, why don't you call up the Kansas DCF, and volunteer to support the kid yourself? It may be sad that the responsibility is being forced on an unwilling dad, but it would be sadder if it was forced on unwilling taxpayers.

Because that's not allowed. Only parents can have any say in anything about a child. Except the police. And DCF. And the state legislature.

What's sad is that the state is using a technicality to override a valid contract, over the objections of all other parties. I wonder what impact this may have on parental rights contracts in adoptions? The issues are very similar - sign your parental rights over another party. So if an adoptive parent goes on welfare, can the welfare office retroactively cancel the adoption because it cost the state money?

I think the base issue is that Kansas doesn't consider the lesbian relationship as legitimate and binding. If this same situation had played out with a female mother and an male, but infertile, father, there would have been no question that both bore financial responsibility for the child regardless of the method of conception. Because the relationship is not recognized, mother mother and mother father are not jointly responsible, and a third party is brought into the support equation.

I don't care about the morals, traditions and threats of divine retribution; the state is doing a disservice to all citizens by not recognizing the non-traditional "marriages" under common law. In this case they seek to recoup $6000 from a third party, and will no doubt pick up far more than $6000 in legal expenses as this nonsense winds through the courts. Make the non-traditionals bear the same social responsibility as the more conventional family units. I am less concerned about any moral implications of such relationships than I am about the lack of responsibility that is afforded to participants in the non-traditional relationship because the state fails to recognize them. The state's perverted thinking on this matter brings real costs to the people whose moral values they are allegedly protecting.

Marry them, tax them, and let them bear the cost of their choices like the rest of us. Share the pain.

"Parental responsibilities are owed to a child and cannot be waived by a parent."

Tell that to all those wives who want a divorce + custody. They want to "waive" the rights of one parent.

No responsibility without authority! If you want to cut them out of the children's lives, and give them no authority over how those children are raised, then every principle of ethics says they should have no further responsibility for that child, either.

I would go another direction and say that the problem with the legal system is how arbitrarily it is applied. Critics of the ruling have pointed out that the law was not really intended for this usage and this is the first time it has been applied this way by a state service that does not exactly have the best reputation for tracking down deadbeats who actually are a parent. So it was an unusual usage of the law and an unusual amount of state effort put into it, all to go after someone who helped lesbians in a political climate where certain people are having additional weight put on them for fear they are being 'uppity'.

Sadly, even crossing your Is and dotting your Ts is less important then when you have officials looking to score points by hurting you....officials who have all their expenses paid while the person who it is being applied to pays out of their own pocket.

the sad par when my dad won the case over my deadbeat mother every time he would file taxes they would take them calming he owed child support when my mother was the one that owed. the fucked this up for years and years despite going to court correcting the fuckup many times then one day a check shows up to the house for 30 grand all the money they owed him form snatching his taxes for years.

I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.

They should have gone with the virgin Mary story and said that God was the father of the child.

What we should take from this is that it isn't wrong to help a lesbian couple out with getting a child but avoid giving them your name and home address.

Virgin Mary story would have lost them benefits from the state. This is a story of the Govt controlling who can have kids and who can't and one could even argue it's discrimination by the govt, because by saying "all your signed legal donor contracts are worthless" the govt is essentially saying "sorry lesbians if you want children you better pay $20,000+ for artificial insemination from a doctor" and requiring same sex couples to pay $20,000 or their child isn't really theirs is a great way to prevent same sex couples from having children at all. With the court ruling the father is still legally the father in this case means any same sex couple who had a child without artifical insemination could face a custody battle someday.

Virgin Mary story would have lost them benefits from the state. This is a story of the Govt controlling who can have kids and who can't and one could even argue it's discrimination by the govt, because by saying "all your signed legal donor contracts are worthless" the govt is essentially saying "sorry lesbians if you want children you better pay $20,000+ for artificial insemination from a doctor" and requiring same sex couples to pay $20,000 or their child isn't really theirs is a great way to prevent same sex couples from having children at all. With the court ruling the father is still legally the father in this case means any same sex couple who had a child without artifical insemination could face a custody battle someday.

To prevent kids from being on welfare, we should require that parents deposit $100,000 with DCF before they are allowed to have unprotected sex. If they can't afford that, they can't afford to pay for the kids, and should be forcibly sterilized so we don't have all these children in poverty. It's for the children! WHY DON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?

You can totally blame the parents. What is this "$6,000 in assistance"? If these are benefits over and above what all parents are entitled to, why are the parents planning children that they are not financially able to support?

You can't say this was an accidental pregnancy. They effectively devised a plan that said; we'll go to some lengths to create a child, and the state will pay for it because we can't. If this wasn't a donor situation then, of course, the state would go hunting for the father's money. So why should this be different? The state was not party to any legal arrangement they had between themselves. Like it or not, he was complicit in the plan.

The only fault the donor made is in not ensuring the couple wanting the child could support it.

The kid has two parents, so you could get the mother's partner to pay up rather than the father. The other woman explicitly chose to be a parent, thus the burden should be her responsibility. Why aren't they? Perhaps because this guy has more income so he's the guy they can extract money from, or perhaps they just think the law is written heteronormatively enough that this will work better.

I don't know the breakdown of $6000 of assistance but I wouldn't just assume that's over and above what another parent might get without more information, since there are numerous tax effects of having a kid. I'm not assuming the other way either. It's just really hard to infer from no information whatsoever.

Note that the state doesn't stop the extremely poor from having a kid together, and then target the midwife for child support payments. Why should this be any different? There were two parents signed up. If the state doesn't like the poor having kids, maybe the state can consider a solution that affects all poor people having kids (it's easy to imagine that going wrong, but it's an option).

The kid has two parents, so you could get the mother's partner to pay up rather than the father. The other woman explicitly chose to be a parent, thus the burden should be her responsibility. Why aren't they? Perhaps because this guy has more income so he's the guy they can extract money from, or perhaps they just think the law is written heteronormatively enough that this will work better.

Well, the simple answer to your question of "Why aren't they?" is because Kansas has a constitutional amendment in place that prohibits the state from recognizing the non-biological mother in that relationship as part of that family. She's just a roommate as far as the eyes of the law are concerned. Therefore, the state's only recourse is to go after the biological father despite any contract that he and the biological mother may have signed.

The other woman explicitly chose to be a parent, thus the burden should be her responsibility. Why aren't they? Perhaps because this guy has more income so he's the guy they can extract money from, or perhaps they just think the law is written heteronormatively enough that this will work better.

My money is on the 2nd, even without reading the law in question.

Almost certainly, the law is written with biological parenthood in mind, so by law the sperm donor is the father and the woman's partner is nowhere even near a parent-child relation but, legally speaking, a stranger.

It seems like her relationship with her partner broke down. Sounds like they were fine when she got pregnant but subsequently things went wrong. It happens, and if the law was sensible it would hold her partner responsible for the child rather than the biological father. After all, they decided to have a child together as the two parents, on the basis of them both being able to care for and support it.

I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.

illness.2. The custodial parent at that point applied for state benefits. During this the state hounded her into giving up the father's name.3. Seeking to recover benefits, the Kansas Department sued to have him declared the father and require child support payments, noting that they paid $189 in cash benefits and 'over $6k' in medical. [kansascity.com]

The way this goes, the Department of Department of Children and Families will get all the money until the ~$6200 is recovered. The woman, as custodial parent of the child,

For those that haven't researched the case, besides it being the State of Kansas suing, not the lesbians, they won't even see any money from the man even if the state wins, as the money will go to the state to repay the benefits given to the child.

Also, the couple was fine until they seperated(divorce anyone?) and one lost her job due to illness. [cnn.com]

Actually you can blame them. They didn't have to tell anyone his name. They could have said "we don't know"... they chose to name him. And in naming him, they screwed him.

As to the government, they really don't amend their laws to take new circumstances into consideration. This whole sperm donor thing is not something the law understands at a deep level.

Should the judge be holding this guy accountable? Obviously not. But at some level it might not be entirely his fault since that might just be how the law is written and it isn't his job to say which laws are and are not reasonable. Rather, it is his job to judge how specific circumstances interact with the law.

In any case, let this be a lesson to men in general. Don't donate your sperm to two crazy girls over the internet.

They had signed legal documents with the donor's name and address. Had they chosen to withhold that information and the state found out I'm sure the same sex couple could have been found guilty of lying to the court or fraud. Even if the donor chose to donate annonymously through an attorney I'm sure the attorney had the information and would have to give it to the state.

I don't think you can blame the parents for "fucking over" the donor: it's the Kansas Department for Children and Families that has brought the case, and the recipients of the funds may not have a say in the matter.

And the Kansas Department for Children and Families is completely right about this: Two persons cannot make any contract or agreement that takes away the rights of a third person. It is the right of the child to get support from his biological parents. The mother cannot decide that the child should not exercise this right. Even as a legal guardian of the child she can only make decisions for the child that are in the interest of the child. But not getting support from the child's farther is in the interest

A woman can still get benefits without naming the possible dad. My ex did it with the kid she had before she met me and she was far from alone. The mother chose to name the Dad because then she gets benefits and child support. She's letting the state be the bad guy to keep the blame off of her for her own greed. Quit making excuses for others malicious behavior.

Given the amounts involved (it averages $100 per month) it might be that they assumed it was some blanket program. Some of it might be the state reclaiming money from blanket programs for everyone under a certain income threshold, things like free shots. It's not obvious.

Given the amounts involved (it averages $100 per month) it might be that they assumed it was some blanket program. Some of it might be the state reclaiming money from blanket programs for everyone under a certain income threshold, things like free shots. It's not obvious.

Very true - also a lot of people here forget that circumstances can easily change. You could lose your job, become sick etc so that you need child support where you didn't previously. Claiming benefits does not automatically make you a greedy feckless scrounger.

I just want to chime in on that comment. While I don't know what the Republican party stands for these days, it used to be conservatism. It's not that conservative want people to suffer, quite the opposite in fact. Conservatives don't want people to depend on the government as it feeds the beast. To feed the beast means putting poor people deeper and deeper into indentured servitude. Rather, conservatives want people to become self-sufficient and confident of their own future of their own aspirations in lif

If the state law requires a doctor then that law is discrimating against same sex couples and is illegal by the equal rights act because it would require same sex couples to pay a doctor many thousands of dollars for unnecessary artificial insemination treatments which means the law is designed to prevent same sex couples from having children unless they pay huge amounts first.

From the summary: "The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have William Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009 so he can be held responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided"

The law needs updating to cover same sex couples. If they decided to have a child together it shouldn't matter that they were unable to provide the sperm themselves, the responsibility for the child is still theirs.

The law needs updating to cover same sex couples. If they decided to have a child together it shouldn't matter that they were unable to provide the sperm themselves, the responsibility for the child is still theirs.

They've already updated the law to reflect that. Part of their law is involving a licensed physician somehow; you can't just decide that you'll raise children as a couple, you have to seek approval. Since they did not follow the prescribed legal process in their state, the responsible parents of record are not the parties that they wanted them to be. In a state with such a thing as government assistance and moreover responsibility, it is infeasible for the state to not be involved when a child is born. They

Why do prospective parents need permission from the state (or a doctor) if they are using a sperm donor, but don't need permission if they use their own gametes?

Because the default, traditional, de facto state of affairs is that the man who impregnates the woman is on the hook for these charges, and they're seeking an alternate arrangement. As long as someone other than the mother is held responsible, and society is involved in holding them responsible, then the legal framework is going to account for that somehow. Since the majority of births fit the traditional pattern, the law reflects that. If society were to change such that the majority of romantic couples we

They did not ask him however the state was asked for support and money from the state; beyond those given to anyone filing taxes. The state is going after the father to collect the money they paid out.

While I broadly agree, it doesn't appear the lesbian couple actually asked for the guy to pay child support; that was all on the state's initiative.

Citing the above, since it's very relevant. The issue here is it's a government agency abusing a loophole (well, not really a loophole since it's intended, I suppose) to get paid back for $6000 in state services. They've essentially gotten a two for one deal - not only do they get reimbursed for the matter, but they also managed to set a nice little precedent for future cases like this.

In short, make sure the blame stays on the Kansas Department for Children and Families.

I first blame the sperm donor, for not making sure the couple the sperm was being donated to, had the proper means, financial resources, and responsibility raise a child.

What if they did have the proper means, financial resources, and responsibility to raise a child, but one of them gets into a rather serious accident that puts a huge financial burden on them (in medical care and lost income), the other has to take time off work a lot to take care of the first (more lost income), and to top it all off the one who got into an accident doesn't even make it through and now there's a permanent loss of income and a funeral to pay for? The donor couldn't have known that would happen any more than they could have known what happened in this specific case. Still ready to just blame the donor?

AND the couple for applying for public assistance/welfare after artificial insemination, WTF?

So people who go through artificial insemination should not be eligible for assistance/welfare, only those who get naturally pregnant? Or is this only for couples who get artificially inseminated with a third party's sperm? Or only for female/female couples?Now if it were two rich people with great jobs, I could certainly understand the argument.. though the 'artificial insemination' bit remains rather moot.

Though him suing them for violation of the contract might be interesting.

Not for breach of contract, but simply a suit in civil court for damages. If they couldn't afford to raise their child, though, will they be able to afford to pay the judgment? My sources say no. Odds are they have nothing worth seizing. The guy will still be on the hook for the money. It's a good time to move to another country, if you were thinking about it anyway. Say, Chile.

The couple have already had the money, the State are clawing it back from him.

This is really nothing more than a CSA claim gone by the book, based on the assumption that the waiver he signed isn't worth the paper it was written on, and the Department have gone with it and designated him an absent, deadbeat father.

Rightly or wrongly. My personal opinion on the matter is as irrelevant as it is ill-informed on the nuances of Kansas State law.

First of all, the extreme wealth inequality in your country means that 46 million people are living in poverty. People are using food stamps for fuck's sake, and it's not even actual war time. Using money as a reason to not live a life is hardly realistic.

Second of all, as far as I can tell the parents aren't the ones fucking over the donor, it's the state of Kansas.

There's a difference between donating some genetic material to a couple who can't conceive on their own, and being a father.

This man, at the request of the couple he was donating the material to, signed away any rights/claims to being a father. This is completely and utterly wrongheaded on behalf of the state, and I hope the man is able to take it to appeals.

And I say that as a lesbian who has been in a similar situation to the women in this case. (we ended up not having kids, but were looking at the possibility).

So, her body, her right, her choice, is somehow his responsibility? If women want sole control over the reproductive process ("It's a woman's issue"), then they should have sole responsibility too. If she wants a man to help, then she has to get him to sign a contract/get married and only have children by him. Now, THAT is equitable. The current status quo is privilege for women at the expense of men.

There's a chance you were trolling/joking, but despite that, you were modded insightful anyway. This shows how badly feminism has biased the society against men.